6 ms·

> So what is lost? Well...whatever isnt abstractable, right? Raises a most curious question.. what ever isnt abstractable?

• visarga 10y ago
  We're just systems that transport our genes into the next generation. Our perception exists mostly to help us find food, avoid dangers and reproduce. Of course we lose a lot of information, because it is irrelevant to us.
  • goldenkek 10y ago
    Fortunately, evolution selected for intellect even though it might have initially have been past a minimum fitness/energy valley. Id encourage you to rethink this simplistic view that ignores the general tool that developed in order to handle more random and abstract specific solutions to threats.
    • fpoling 10y ago
      There is no proof that smarter brain is what was targeted by evolution. It could be that the size of human brain was either purely accidental consequence of other factor or at least was driven by the needs like balancing when walking/running on 2 legs.
      • berntb 10y ago
        A simple reality check: Considering the large energy needs of the brain, there is an evolutionary pressure to make it smaller... so something pushed it the other way.
        • fpoling 10y ago
          Compared with apes humans much more efficient at digesting of starch. However to get enough protein and micronutrients from starchy root vegetables one has to consume much more in calories compared with vegetables. That effectively provided "free" energy to keep bigger brain. Of cause this is rather speculative, but it just emphasises that we really do not now why humans develop bigger brain.
          • corecoder 10y ago
            There's another point: big heads (whether they contain a big brain or not) are selected against, as they make birth a much more dangerous business that it would be otherwise.
          • berntb 10y ago
            Fun idea. I find that rather unlikely. Some points. Are there any evidence for a period without meat in the diet, to start with? Considering that teeth are hardy, this will probably be testable in our lifetime. I've rather seen claims that the brains were larger before civilization, following the hypothesis that it is hard to live as a hunter gatherer. (And then it was with lots of meat in the diet.) We do know that calories have been a limiting factor for most life, generally also including humans. iirc, 20% of the energy need goes to the brain. The brain size would vary a lot, if it really didn't make a big difference. Consider that the evolved tendencies for getting diabetes are there because it made it easier to handle periods of hunger. So sure, that might be much later, but... And also, eating those starches needed cooking for humans, afaik? Which needs some brain power (there was not time to evolve instincts). We lost a lot in the jaws and teeth to get the brains. (Couldn't have both.) Then, there was news just a week or two ago about a new result -- humans put "building capital" into our brains rather than our muscles, which is why most monkeys while large as children can tear a human's arm off and beat our head in with it... Brains are expensive. I might add that there have to be a hard evolutionary pressure to build complex organs, like the extra stuff in the human brain. It is hardly just more neurons added to earlier monkeys (evolution is hill climbing, so you will find simpler/different analogues in other primates, but it isn't just adding some volume and e.g. <miracle> language circuits :-) ). And so on. This list could probably be longer. :-)
          • VLM 10y ago
            Another abundant energy source is fish protein, which always existed but our ancestors species is the only species that went nuts over fishing. Its pretty easy for hominids or scavengers in general to get fish protein at a net loss, or in very small quantities, but once you have a big enough brain our species really got into eating fish starting about 100Kyrs ago. Apparently there is evidence you need a pretty big brain and speech abilities to run a net energy positive fishing village. A neanderthal should be able to catch fish, just not efficiently enough to live off a fishing culture. Their trash piles have all kinds of bones, just not fish bones. Ours are/were full of fish bones, anywhere there's fish. Fishing might have been "the niche" that led to our species... starting with older hominids who were better than average at gathering fish due to some local geologic peculiarity (the perfect river to catch salmon by hand occasionally or whatever), a zillion generation later of ever improving therefore ever fatter fisherman and we got a prehistoric Captain Ahab filling the tribe trash piles with fish bones and the non-homo sapiens cousins can't fish compared to us and die off because we're fat from fish and they aren't. Large amounts of starch would seem to require agriculture which is pretty recent compared to fishing.
        • fpoling 10y ago
          https://www.academia.edu/1276752/The_causes_of_brain_enlargement_in_human_evolution https://www.academia.edu/1276752/The_causes_of_brain_enlarge... didcusses that bigger brain could have evolved as it was easier to keep brain functional under intense heat.
      • enkid 10y ago
        There's no such thing as "targeted by evolution". There's passing on genes and not passing on genes. This tends to happen with individuals that are better at survival (or that procreate more). Modifications to genes to create an individual better at passing on genes are essentially random.
    • digi_owl 10y ago
      Evolution do not "target" jack all. If gene A survive over gene B it simply means that A is a better fit for the present local conditions.
      • posterboy 10y ago
        Antromorphism is a common figure of speech, just like your "it means".
  • kurosawa 10y ago
    I use my perception to do much more, most of the time. All evidence points to humans being a good few steps above other animals for whom those three activities are not only necessary but almost sufficient.
    • no-opinion 10y ago
      Humans might be above animals, but I suspect not by much. Who's to say what minor event in evolution prevents dolphins or AI in becoming sentient.
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      • dualogy 10y ago
        Opposable thumbs, most likely.
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
• wolfgke 10y ago
  > what ever isnt abstractable? If you are interested in this kind of question, read up on Kolmogorov complexity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity